Dutra Group v. Batterton
View Official PDFBelow are plain-language sections to help you understand what the Court decided in Dutra Group v. Batterton and why it matters. Quotes are taken from the syllabus (the Court’s short summary at the start of the opinion).
Summary
A short, plain-English overview of Dutra Group v. Batterton.
In Dutra Group v. Batterton, the Supreme Court addressed whether punitive damages are available for claims of unseaworthiness under maritime law. The Court concluded that such damages are not permissible, aligning with historical precedent and legislative guidance. This decision emphasizes the importance of uniformity between maritime statutory law and common law remedies.
Holding
The single most important “bottom line” of what the Court decided in Dutra Group v. Batterton.
The Court held that a plaintiff may not recover punitive damages on a claim of unseaworthiness.
Constitutional Concepts
These are the Constitution-related themes that appear in Dutra Group v. Batterton. Click a concept to see other cases that involve the same idea.
-
Why Remedies and Relief is relevant to Dutra Group v. Batterton
The case primarily deals with the availability of punitive damages as a remedy under maritime law, which is a question of what types of relief are permissible.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)Held: A plaintiff may not recover punitive damages on a claim of unseaworthiness. Pp. 369–377.
-
Why Judicial Review is relevant to Dutra Group v. Batterton
The Court exercises its authority to interpret and apply maritime law, which involves reviewing and potentially limiting judicially created remedies.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)This Court cannot sanction a novel remedy here unless it is required to maintain uniformity with Congress's clearly expressed policies.
-
Why State–Federal Power is relevant to Dutra Group v. Batterton
The decision involves the interaction between federal maritime law and legislative enactments like the Jones Act, reflecting the balance of state and federal powers.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)It would, therefore, exceed the Court's objectives of pursuing policies found in congressional enactments and promoting uniformity between maritime statutory law and maritime common law.
Key Quotes
Short excerpts from the syllabus in Dutra Group v. Batterton that support the summary and concepts above.
A plaintiff may not recover punitive damages on a claim of unseaworthiness.
The overwhelming historical evidence suggests that punitive damages are not available for unseaworthiness claims.
Adopting Batterton's rule would be contrary to Miles's command that federal courts should seek to promote a 'uniform rule applicable to all actions' for the same injury.
